Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:52 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
mikejepp wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


Or King Air 350...


VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


I don't think their in the same market (but I'm willing to be educated).

I think both those planes are more executive travel (business jet like planes) than regularly scheduled passenger/freight. Does anyone use either of those planes for regularly scheduled passenger/freight?

My guess is that the economics of the King Air are pretty bad for this market. The PC-12 is interesting, but it's more optimized for longer range than this market really needs. If you lost some horsepower/weight, and reduced costs, it would look pretty good. But who needs to fly 9 people 1,000 miles on a regular scheduled airline?


BOUTIQUE air uses the PC 12 and the 350

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:01 pm

I'm also surprised the CESSNA DENALI was left out of the discussion … it can also seat 9

https://cessna.txtav.com/en/turboprop/d ... l-interior
 
VS11
Posts: 1661
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:04 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mikejepp wrote:

Or King Air 350...


VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


I don't think their in the same market (but I'm willing to be educated).

I think both those planes are more executive travel (business jet like planes) than regularly scheduled passenger/freight. Does anyone use either of those planes for regularly scheduled passenger/freight?

My guess is that the economics of the King Air are pretty bad for this market. The PC-12 is interesting, but it's more optimized for longer range than this market really needs. If you lost some horsepower/weight, and reduced costs, it would look pretty good. But who needs to fly 9 people 1,000 miles on a regular scheduled airline?


BOUTIQUE air uses the PC 12 and the 350

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule


That’s a pretty interesting airline. I didn’t know of them. Thanks for sharing.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:08 pm

VS11 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:



I don't think their in the same market (but I'm willing to be educated).

I think both those planes are more executive travel (business jet like planes) than regularly scheduled passenger/freight. Does anyone use either of those planes for regularly scheduled passenger/freight?

My guess is that the economics of the King Air are pretty bad for this market. The PC-12 is interesting, but it's more optimized for longer range than this market really needs. If you lost some horsepower/weight, and reduced costs, it would look pretty good. But who needs to fly 9 people 1,000 miles on a regular scheduled airline?


BOUTIQUE air uses the PC 12 and the 350

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/our-aircraft

https://www.boutiqueair.com/p/schedule


That’s a pretty interesting airline. I didn’t know of them. Thanks for sharing.


All EAS routes some covering very long distances
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:22 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

I have hundreds of hours of Rotax 912 time, they run fine on 100LL with the correct MX being performed. Oil changes have to happen 2x as often but otherwise, it’s no big deal. Having an A&P that knows how to work on a Rotax is the key, as they aren’t a dinosaur Lycoming or Continental motor of the 1950s


Or for transport category you could just go turbine and avoid all of the archaic piston technology all together... again power plant aside, Tecnams are poorly constructed and designed aircraft.


I'm not saying you're wrong about the Tecam being poorly constructed. But Cape Air has ordered 100 of them, and they are sort of designed to Cape Air specs, and Cape Air has significant experience, and you'd think they would act as a check on quality control for the aircraft. Cape Air must trust (and insepct) that Tecam is doing the right thing.

About the turbine ... There is no fuel efficient 375HP turbine (although maybe the RR300 could be uprated to that level). So your choices are single turbine or two pistons. I'd rather be with two pistons. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 single engine planes flying behind a PT-6 and they've been doing it for over a decade (the TBM and the PC-12) and I think no one has ever died because of engine failure.

Will the FAA allow regularly scheduled airline flights in single engine aircraft in IFR?


Fuel efficiency is not the end all of this market .... What is the cost of the fuel to make the bird fly trouble free.

AVGAS vs JET FUEL A
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:57 pm

Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.
 
SoCalPilot
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:37 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:11 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
About the turbine ... There is no fuel efficient 375HP turbine (although maybe the RR300 could be uprated to that level). So your choices are single turbine or two pistons. I'd rather be with two pistons. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 single engine planes flying behind a PT-6 and they've been doing it for over a decade (the TBM and the PC-12) and I think no one has ever died because of engine failure.

Will the FAA allow regularly scheduled airline flights in single engine aircraft in IFR?

As a pilot, I'd much rather fly a SE turbine than a ME piston. As you stated, single engine turboprops are pretty safe, thanks to the reliability of a turbine engine.

As to the FAA allowing scheduled flights, they already do - it's called scheduled Part 135.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:28 pm

It's Tecnam.
Not Tecam, not Tencam (ref. to the Evektor thread).

Also not the Skycatcher, but the SkyCourier.

Boy oh boy...

Anyways, Tecnam has been around for a while, but not everybody is fan of Rotax, especially commercial operators.
It's a small manufacturer, you can't really compare it to Cessna/Textron.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:30 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...
 
hz747300
Posts: 2417
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:56 pm

GCT64 wrote:
hz747300 wrote:
What about the British one, the Shorts? I think that is awesome for freight.


Shorts 360 production ceased in 1991. At most there's only about 45-50 still operating. I don't think this is really relevant to this conversation.

Interesting that the first aircraft actually built as a SH360 (N360SA) has carried the same registration since 1982 and is currently still operating carrying freight on a daily rotation CAE-MYR-CAE.


I'd buy the rights to launch a nextgen--if I had the cash.

I read the specs of the ones listed at the top, of all them I think the Skycatcher is the better model. I'd be a bit concerned on a Tecam with an engine out on takeoff with full passengers.
Keep on truckin'...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:55 am

kitplane01 wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

I have hundreds of hours of Rotax 912 time, they run fine on 100LL with the correct MX being performed. Oil changes have to happen 2x as often but otherwise, it’s no big deal. Having an A&P that knows how to work on a Rotax is the key, as they aren’t a dinosaur Lycoming or Continental motor of the 1950s


Or for transport category you could just go turbine and avoid all of the archaic piston technology all together... again power plant aside, Tecnams are poorly constructed and designed aircraft.


I'm not saying you're wrong about the Tecam being poorly constructed. But Cape Air has ordered 100 of them, and they are sort of designed to Cape Air specs, and Cape Air has significant experience, and you'd think they would act as a check on quality control for the aircraft. Cape Air must trust (and insepct) that Tecam is doing the right thing.

About the turbine ... There is no fuel efficient 375HP turbine (although maybe the RR300 could be uprated to that level). So your choices are single turbine or two pistons. I'd rather be with two pistons. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 single engine planes flying behind a PT-6 and they've been doing it for over a decade (the TBM and the PC-12) and I think no one has ever died because of engine failure.

Will the FAA allow regularly scheduled airline flights in single engine aircraft in IFR?


Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:09 am

hz747300 wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
hz747300 wrote:
What about the British one, the Shorts? I think that is awesome for freight.


Shorts 360 production ceased in 1991. At most there's only about 45-50 still operating. I don't think this is really relevant to this conversation.

Interesting that the first aircraft actually built as a SH360 (N360SA) has carried the same registration since 1982 and is currently still operating carrying freight on a daily rotation CAE-MYR-CAE.


I'd buy the rights to launch a nextgen--if I had the cash.

I read the specs of the ones listed at the top, of all them I think the Skycatcher is the better model. I'd be a bit concerned on a Tecam with an engine out on takeoff with full passengers.


They list a 300ft/minute rate of climb with one engine. The Cessna 402, which this replaces, has a single engine rate of climb of either 225 (402A) or 300 ft/minute (402C).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:20 am

I suspect that FedEX already went thru the choices and went with the SkyCourier which seems to be specifically designed for short distance freight - 3 LD3's is a lot of cube for 6,000 lb payload. Fixed wheels, few thrills, no bells or whistles.
The engine PT6A-65SC is a variant that has been around for just a while. Should be a real workhorse. Per Flightglobal's 5-28-19 article
Textron is assembling a SkyCourier prototype and five flight- and ground-test vehicles, while the aircraft's McCauley Propeller Systems props have undergone nearly 110h of tests. Assembly of the fuel system and landing-gear test articles has started; testing of both systems will begin this month, says Textron.


https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2017/11/t ... skycourier

http://www.australianflying.com.au/late ... r-programs
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:53 am

CFM565A1 wrote:
As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


Wait til they've been in service a while before making a "shot from the hip" statement. "They're not in Kansas anymore". They've got 100+ orders for it now. Tecnam's got a lot riding on this and I have serious doubts they'll be relaxed on any part of the program.

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...


Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.

VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


$5 mil versus $2.5 a piece for one thing compared to the P2012.

Hence my username, I love the PC-12, but I believe the P2012 will make it's mark on the industry.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:06 am

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:15 am

filipinoavgeek wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?


According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
filipinoavgeek
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:18 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:25 am

PC12Fan wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...

Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.


What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?


According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.


I see. Are there any other airlines interested in the SkyCourier other than FedEx?
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:28 am

I am thinking. What about the new Y-12F?
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:48 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
I suspect that FedEX already went thru the choices and went with the SkyCourier which seems to be specifically designed for short distance freight - 3 LD3's is a lot of cube for 6,000 lb payload.


I think it's more accurate to say that FedEX went to Cessna and told them exactly what their requirements were, and then dangled a very large order. The SkyCourier is basically designed for FedEX's needs.
 
Speedalive
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:56 am

CFM565A1 wrote:

Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!

They were also clearly not designed to be flying out of an airport with an elevation of just under 4000' with far higher summer density altitudes. Glad these have been replaced with much nicer and better equipped PA34's with turbo's. It's a shame it took a fatal crash to make that decision...
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:34 pm

PC12Fan wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
As I said earlier, fuel grade aside, they aren’t good planes... experimental at best.


Wait til they've been in service a while before making a "shot from the hip" statement. "They're not in Kansas anymore". They've got 100+ orders for it now. Tecnam's got a lot riding on this and I have serious doubts they'll be relaxed on any part of the program.

crjflyboy wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Has anyone else other than FedEx ordered the SkyCourier thus far? It seems like a kind of aircraft that could work well among small operators or remote areas, but I haven't read any other company talking about it.


I've not heard anyone ... CESSNA no longer listens to potential customers of what they may need ...


Cape Air went to them, basically had the door slammed in their face.

VS11 wrote:
Any reason why the Pilatus PC-12 was excluded? It can get up to 9 pax.


$5 mil versus $2.5 a piece for one thing compared to the P2012.

Hence my username, I love the PC-12, but I believe the P2012 will make it's mark on the industry.


Well again, based on previous experience with their products, they'll have to do better and convince me otherwise... until them I still rank them as nothing more than an experimental flying piece of plastic.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:36 pm

Speedalive wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:

Well I’ll agree to disagree about Tecnam products (partly because one of the ones I flew was involved with a fatal crash that lead to their grounding and withdrawal from service). I have heard too many horror stories from others as well about their lack of quality... it’s not like air operators have never made a mistake before ordering planes then removing them from their fleets afterwards.

I guess we’ll find out!

They were also clearly not designed to be flying out of an airport with an elevation of just under 4000' with far higher summer density altitudes. Glad these have been replaced with much nicer and better equipped PA34's with turbo's. It's a shame it took a fatal crash to make that decision...


That plus when you'd return from a flight to find screws missing from the wing/fuselage area... one would wonder what or who designed and built them :roll:
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:40 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
Well again, based on previous experience with their products, they'll have to do better and convince me otherwise... until them I still rank them as nothing more than an experimental flying piece of plastic.


I can appreciate the "once bitten, twice shy" mentality, nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that now that they'll have to have airliner mentality with the P2012. IMO, that changes things just a tad.

As you stated earlier, we'll found out soon enough.

Regards
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
aumaverick
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:26 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
There are four aircraft that might serve the smallest of markets, both passenger and freight.

Cessna Caravan
Seats: 8
Engine: 1 x 675HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 186 kts
Cost: $2.5M

DHC-6 Twin Otter
Seats: 19
Engine: 2 x 750 HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 182 kts
Cost: $7M

Cessna Skycatcher
Seats: 19
Engines: 2 x 1100HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 200 kts
Cost: $5.0M

Tecam P2012
Seats: 9
Engines: 2 x 375HP piston
Cruise Speed: 190 kts
Cost: $2.7M

So far we know that FedEx has ordered 50+50 Skycatchers for it's initial order. We know that the Skycatcher is designed in part for the FedEx operation. Cape Air has ordered 100 P2012, which are designed in part just for the Cape Air operation.

Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space. It does burn less fuel though.

I would think the P2012 vs Caravan market comes down to this: would you rather have two piston engines or one turbine? I'm guessing the two pistons cost $120,000 overhaul combined, and the PT-6 costs twice as much to perform a hot section but it lasts twice as long. In many places avgas costs more than jet-A. Also, the Cessna support network is bigger than Tecam's. But two engines it arguably safer than one, and in some places required for passenger service.

Anyone want to predict the future for these aircraft?



Caravan
Image
Skycatcher
Image
Tecam P2012
Image
Twin Otter
Image



Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1771
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:40 pm

aumaverick wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
There are four aircraft that might serve the smallest of markets, both passenger and freight.

Cessna Caravan
Seats: 8
Engine: 1 x 675HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 186 kts
Cost: $2.5M

DHC-6 Twin Otter
Seats: 19
Engine: 2 x 750 HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 182 kts
Cost: $7M

Cessna Skycatcher
Seats: 19
Engines: 2 x 1100HP turbine
Cruise Speed: 200 kts
Cost: $5.0M

Tecam P2012
Seats: 9
Engines: 2 x 375HP piston
Cruise Speed: 190 kts
Cost: $2.7M

So far we know that FedEx has ordered 50+50 Skycatchers for it's initial order. We know that the Skycatcher is designed in part for the FedEx operation. Cape Air has ordered 100 P2012, which are designed in part just for the Cape Air operation.

Hard to imagine the Twin Otter can out compete the Skycatcher. It costs $2M more, flies slower, and has less cabin space. It does burn less fuel though.

I would think the P2012 vs Caravan market comes down to this: would you rather have two piston engines or one turbine? I'm guessing the two pistons cost $120,000 overhaul combined, and the PT-6 costs twice as much to perform a hot section but it lasts twice as long. In many places avgas costs more than jet-A. Also, the Cessna support network is bigger than Tecam's. But two engines it arguably safer than one, and in some places required for passenger service.

Anyone want to predict the future for these aircraft?



Caravan
Image
Skycatcher
Image
Tecam P2012
Image
Twin Otter
Image



Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html

Sexy aircraft
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10730
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:58 pm

aumaverick wrote:
Here is a new aircraft not mentioned, but it looks like an elecrtic aircraft has just secured orders from CapeAir.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/all-ele ... tomer.html


And here we have the future.

Scrolling through this thread, there is a litany of interesting and niche designs, none of which are really 'killing it; (any more for some variants) in the sales. Why - because the future for the STOL short range commuter market is in electric aircraft. It may not be this model, it may not be the next to come to market but within the next decade Electric is going to become established as the way forward. I should think manufacturers like RUAG, Britten Norman and Tecnam are feeling particularly exposed - at least Viking and Cessna have amphibious / off grid niches to expand.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
BeowulfShaeffer
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:42 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:29 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
It's Tecnam.
Anyways, Tecnam has been around for a while, but not everybody is fan of Rotax, especially commercial operators.
It's a small manufacturer, you can't really compare it to Cessna/Textron.

The P2012 has a pair of 315hp Lycoming engines. There's a review in this month's "paper" Flying magazine, pp. 34-43. The article isn't online for some reason.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:14 pm

Some keep stating that the P202 was designed for Cape. What did Cape want in an aircraft?

And until the FAA allows single pilot operations in a 19 pax aircraft this segment is dead with the US commuter or regional airlines. But all things are cyclical.
 
BeowulfShaeffer
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:42 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:57 pm

william wrote:
Some keep stating that the P202 was designed for Cape. What did Cape want in an aircraft?

And until the FAA allows single pilot operations in a 19 pax aircraft this segment is dead with the US commuter or regional airlines. But all things are cyclical.


According to that same article in Flying, they wanted a high-wing fixed gear 2 (piston) engine aircraft to replace their aging (and difficult to maintain) Cessna 402s.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:30 pm

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/07/2 ... rom-italy/

Cape Air is in the process of accepting first aircraft. 9 this year, and 12 in 2020. Surprised Cape does not fly these with just one pilot.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:38 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
you left out the EVEKTOR EV 55 OUTBACK … it's cheaper to buy then all of these you listed and much faster in flight

https://www.evektor.cz/en/ev-55-outback


Francoflier wrote:
You forget the LET-410... If you ask me, better than all of the above.


You can argue for it if you want, but negatives include

1) Needs two turbines to carry nine passengers (or an equivalent amount of freight).
2) No support network anywhere except Europe

Really, I don't understand how you overcome the economics of #1. When was the last time such a small twin turbine was successful? Maybe the King Air (but that's not really an airline market).

I'm willing to be educated.


I saw the Cessna quick-change cabin mock-up at Oshkosh. It was impressive.
I think it has the potential to be a real game changer, if Textron management doesn’t screw this up. The pax version is very roomy, with 6 feet+ of headroom. You hardly notice the spar crossing. The US economics (pilot costs and shortage) may keep this out of widespread pax use here, but I can easily see the demand for it worldwide.

There is a HUGE market for this type of plane, and this category has been largely ignored since the intro of the CRJ.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26574
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:36 am

When I first saw this I'm like "Cessna reused the name from those junky LSAs they just decided to scrap the entire fleet of?"

The Caravan is optimized to carry packages for FedEx, but some folks have used its utility to make it a useful passenger hauler in certain situations. It certainly isn't a particularly efficient plane, and that 186 knot speed is pretty optimistic (I think Mokuele flies their around 135-140 to save gas). My guess is the 408 twin is being built partly to satisfy the silly no single engine commercial IFR rules in Europe, and partly to be able to size up and speed up from the Caravan.

As for the P2012, I can't imagine Lycoming certifying those engines for MoGas, and AvGas isn't going anywhere until they've found a completely reliable solution for getting octane levels high enough in UL fuel. I also don't think CapeAir cares much about using AvGas, because they are also an AvGas reseller and can get it anywhere they fly.

As for the Kodiak, it is kinda small for the market, and gets smoked on speed by something like a PC12.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
rowerwet
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:26 pm

CFM565A1 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.


Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?

Cape has been begging Cessna to make the 402C again, their competitor with 402C's that went belly up a few years ago added a couple C208's to their fleet and got eaten alive by the engine costs of a PT6. The issue is the cycle count, every start and shut down takes a toll, and lots of items come due sooner with a average 15 min leg for the Island market. Add to this the daily desalination wash at the end of the day to avoid exploding turbine wheels, and the PT6 doesn't make a good replacement in the market.
Cycles are not what drive Continental or Lycoming maintenance.
Last I heard, the Tecnam was underwhelming the pilots with single engine performance, and struggling with icing certification.
Longevity is the least of Cape's problems.
 
rowerwet
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:43 pm

Cape air claims their insurance would kill them to operate single engine over water.
The king air and PC-12 both have the desalination wash issue, are heavy due to pressurization, which is a liability on short hop flights, and have the issue of limited baggage capacity. That big nose on the 402 allows you to carry the bags and extra freight, which people on the Islands, who commute to shop, expect to carry back with them. 9 people going on vacation with the carry on bag and big suitcase will stuff the baggage compartment of a King air or PC12 and end up carrying stuff on their laps, if you can fit it all in.
There is an STC for the same baggage pod the 99 has for the king air, but few buy it.
the LET has a CG issue when the fuel tanks are empty, I'm not sure if they ever solved it for the FAA. plus the turbine maintenance costs and parts supply issue.
I expect the 408 to sell well in the same markets in asia and Africa that the Caravan does, and plenty of other rugged markets. The Issue will be runway size as the 408 is huge.
The Kodiak is a half sized C208, aimed at doing the work the 206 and 207 did, it's too cramped for the baggage capacity, has a thirsty engine for low level, short haul work, and is tail heavy. An average sized mechanic working in the baggage compartment dropped one on its' tail when the guy sitting in the cockpit stepped out.
 
rowerwet
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:57 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
PC12Fan wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:

What does this mean? That Cape Air wanted to order the SkyCourier too and got rejected? Or Cape Air approached Cessna for an aircraft order and got turned down? If it's the former, I don't get the logic of rejecting potential customers of an upcoming new type: wouldn't you want more customers?


According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.


I see. Are there any other airlines interested in the SkyCourier other than FedEx?

Cape air wants a piston twin with every capability and speed of the 402C, Cessna says buy a 208.

Fedex has 50 orders in for the 408, 50 options, and Amazon gets the next 50 after FedEx is done. it will be years before they can offer a passenger version delivery.
 
rowerwet
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:03 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:09 pm

william wrote:
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2019/07/25/cape-air-set-to-welcome-first-tecnam-p2012-traveller-aircraft-from-italy/

Cape Air is in the process of accepting first aircraft. 9 this year, and 12 in 2020. Surprised Cape does not fly these with just one pilot.

they are single pilot capable, the copilot program is their way of dealing with the pilot shortage, probably with some sort of contract for so many years with Cape air before they jump ship for a turbo prop or regional
 
cumulushumilis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 8:49 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:28 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
lutfi wrote:
Twin Otter is still for sale for one reason only - STOL performance that is crazy.


...plus its gravel, ice and off-airstrip capabilities, plus tundra tires, plus floats, plus....

Canadian made aircraft are tough!


Second that! It happens to be the only aircraft capable of flying to the South Pole and back in the middle an Antarctic winter. The thing is built like a tank. I don’t think we’ll ever see a Tecnam or Cessna doing that.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4695
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:06 pm

rowerwet wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
PC12Fan wrote:

According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.


I see. Are there any other airlines interested in the SkyCourier other than FedEx?

Cape air wants a piston twin with every capability and speed of the 402C, Cessna says buy a 208.

Fedex has 50 orders in for the 408, 50 options, and Amazon gets the next 50 after FedEx is done. it will be years before they can offer a passenger version delivery.


Citation on your Amazon claim needed.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:45 am

rowerwet wrote:
CFM565A1 wrote:
drdisque wrote:
also regarding your mention of cost of AVGAS vs. JET-A.

I believe the Tecnam P2012 is supposed to run on Mogas, which is one of the purported benefits. Although that may have changed as the design has become more finalized.


Another blunder imo. Our Tecnams were used for training and required Mogas, something not available at most airports. We were told by Tecnam that 100LL Avgas was acceptable. Turns out it caused the engines to foul up with too much lead and also run too hot!

I really don’t see how an operator (like Cape Air) could justify a twin piston with lower power vs something that’s turbine powered in this day and age. If a Tecnam wasn’t suitable for the training environment, then what makes them think they could ever make a product worth of passenger transportation of any kind?

Cape has been begging Cessna to make the 402C again, their competitor with 402C's that went belly up a few years ago added a couple C208's to their fleet and got eaten alive by the engine costs of a PT6. The issue is the cycle count, every start and shut down takes a toll, and lots of items come due sooner with a average 15 min leg for the Island market. Add to this the daily desalination wash at the end of the day to avoid exploding turbine wheels, and the PT6 doesn't make a good replacement in the market.
Cycles are not what drive Continental or Lycoming maintenance.
Last I heard, the Tecnam was underwhelming the pilots with single engine performance, and struggling with icing certification.
Longevity is the least of Cape's problems.


All of which sounds like typical Tecnam short comings :roll:
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
CX747
Posts: 6251
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:03 pm

rowerwet wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
PC12Fan wrote:

According to FLYING, Cape Air approached them about a C402 replacement. Evidently, Cessna wanted nothing to do with it. I was centering my comment on crjflyboys response.

Cape Air has no interest in the SkyCourier that I know of.


I see. Are there any other airlines interested in the SkyCourier other than FedEx?

Cape air wants a piston twin with every capability and speed of the 402C, Cessna says buy a 208.

Fedex has 50 orders in for the 408, 50 options, and Amazon gets the next 50 after FedEx is done. it will be years before they can offer a passenger version delivery.


Do we have any additional information on the Amazon 408 order comment?

As for the aircraft discussion, Cessna products all the way. Their aircraft are just darn bullet proof and reliable.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Rossiya747
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:45 pm

Me prefer An-38 for its double tail
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
2175301
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:04 am

My opinion is that the new clean sheet Cessna SkyCourier will dominate the 19 passenger and freight market where there are good runways (including reasonable length good gravel runways). Clean sheets almost always do that. So nothing new here.

The Twin Otter will continue to dominate the market where such runways do not always exist and for arctic operations. The STOL and landing gear configuratons available, combined with its proven arctic condition operations sets it apart from the others.

Have a great day,
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:03 am

2175301 wrote:
My opinion is that the new clean sheet Cessna SkyCourier will dominate the 19 passenger and freight market where there are good runways (including reasonable length good gravel runways). Clean sheets almost always do that. So nothing new here.

The Twin Otter will continue to dominate the market where such runways do not always exist and for arctic operations. The STOL and landing gear configuratons available, combined with its proven arctic condition operations sets it apart from the others.

Have a great day,


19 seat aircraft are dead in the USA, and this thing is way too slow even if they were not
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:59 am

crjflyboy wrote:
2175301 wrote:
My opinion is that the new clean sheet Cessna SkyCourier will dominate the 19 passenger and freight market where there are good runways (including reasonable length good gravel runways). Clean sheets almost always do that. So nothing new here.

The Twin Otter will continue to dominate the market where such runways do not always exist and for arctic operations. The STOL and landing gear configuratons available, combined with its proven arctic condition operations sets it apart from the others.

Have a great day,


19 seat aircraft are dead in the USA, and this thing is way too slow even if they were not


The Beech 1900 did 285 knots, the Skycourier 200 knots.

Maybe its time for single pilot operation rule to increase to 19 pax aircraft.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:05 am

william wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
2175301 wrote:
My opinion is that the new clean sheet Cessna SkyCourier will dominate the 19 passenger and freight market where there are good runways (including reasonable length good gravel runways). Clean sheets almost always do that. So nothing new here.

The Twin Otter will continue to dominate the market where such runways do not always exist and for arctic operations. The STOL and landing gear configuratons available, combined with its proven arctic condition operations sets it apart from the others.

Have a great day,


19 seat aircraft are dead in the USA, and this thing is way too slow even if they were not


The Beech 1900 did 285 knots, the Skycourier 200 knots.

Maybe its time for single pilot operation rule to increase to 19 pax aircraft.


Single pilot on 19 seats ? NO

Allow 19 seaters to go back to 135 regs ... its absurd to lump them in with 747 regs - 121 status

When the 50 seat regional jets vanish ... a lot of cities will lose air service as the replacements don't exist due to the rules imposed
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2134
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:18 am

CX747 wrote:
As for the aircraft discussion, Cessna products all the way. Their aircraft are just darn bullet proof and reliable.


To bad they don't give a damn about other potential major customers.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 1490
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:38 am

crjflyboy wrote:
william wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:

19 seat aircraft are dead in the USA, and this thing is way too slow even if they were not


The Beech 1900 did 285 knots, the Skycourier 200 knots.

Maybe its time for single pilot operation rule to increase to 19 pax aircraft.


Single pilot on 19 seats ? NO

Allow 19 seaters to go back to 135 regs ... its absurd to lump them in with 747 regs - 121 status

When the 50 seat regional jets vanish ... a lot of cities will lose air service as the replacements don't exist due to the rules imposed


I'm curious about this. What costs do you think the airlines might avoid by switching to part 135? And do you think airlines have it in their DNA (and in the public relations department) to actually make these changes? Having passengers think that 19 seat airliners are certified to a lesser standard of safety than "real" airlines might be a tough sell.

by the way, I think you're kind of right.
 
2175301
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:49 am

PC12Fan wrote:
CX747 wrote:
As for the aircraft discussion, Cessna products all the way. Their aircraft are just darn bullet proof and reliable.


To bad they don't give a damn about other potential major customers.


I'm not so sure about that. While Cape Air uses a lot of 402's and would like to replace the ageing ones.... That does not mean that they have the rock solid finances to be able to fund the purchase of a large number of new aircraft. Honestly, I can see Cessna looking at the Cape Air proposals as having a high financial risk to Cessna. That is not my definition of a "major" customer. Cape Air may have been a potentially large customer. But, you do have to look at the risks involved. My guess is that Cessna looked at the Cape Air proposal as (XX aircraft order, modest to high financial risk, minimal follow-up orders for the type).

FedEx on the other hand has rock solid financials as is a very low financial risk for Cessna. FedEx asked Cessna to design a aircraft that meets there needs with a guarantee of at least 50 orders. Cessna can also see that there will be more orders from others for an aircraft based on the same air-frame. My guess is they looked at the market here with 50 guaranteed with very low credit risk, potential for several hundred more down the line...

If it was your money and resources at risk.... What would you do?

Have a great day,
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Tecnam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:01 am

kitplane01 wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
william wrote:

The Beech 1900 did 285 knots, the Skycourier 200 knots.

Maybe its time for single pilot operation rule to increase to 19 pax aircraft.


Single pilot on 19 seats ? NO

Allow 19 seaters to go back to 135 regs ... its absurd to lump them in with 747 regs - 121 status

When the 50 seat regional jets vanish ... a lot of cities will lose air service as the replacements don't exist due to the rules imposed


I'm curious about this. What costs do you think the airlines might avoid by switching to part 135? And do you think airlines have it in their DNA (and in the public relations department) to actually make these changes? Having passengers think that 19 seat airliners are certified to a lesser standard of safety than "real" airlines might be a tough sell.

by the way, I think you're kind of right.


Millions flew on 19 seat aircraft for decades before the feds forced them to 121 standards.

There are well over a hundred rules forced on 121 carriers vs 135 ... the biggest is the amount of flight hours required for pilots

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases ... wsId=14838

This a massive reason why a pilot shortage exists ... but it's actually a 121 certified pilot shortage that exists
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Tecam P2012 vs Cessna Caravan vs Cessna Skycatcher vs Twin Otter

Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:48 am

2175301 wrote:
PC12Fan wrote:
CX747 wrote:
As for the aircraft discussion, Cessna products all the way. Their aircraft are just darn bullet proof and reliable.


To bad they don't give a damn about other potential major customers.


I'm not so sure about that. While Cape Air uses a lot of 402's and would like to replace the ageing ones.... That does not mean that they have the rock solid finances to be able to fund the purchase of a large number of new aircraft. Honestly, I can see Cessna looking at the Cape Air proposals as having a high financial risk to Cessna. That is not my definition of a "major" customer. Cape Air may have been a potentially large customer. But, you do have to look at the risks involved. My guess is that Cessna looked at the Cape Air proposal as (XX aircraft order, modest to high financial risk, minimal follow-up orders for the type).

FedEx on the other hand has rock solid financials as is a very low financial risk for Cessna. FedEx asked Cessna to design a aircraft that meets there needs with a guarantee of at least 50 orders. Cessna can also see that there will be more orders from others for an aircraft based on the same air-frame. My guess is they looked at the market here with 50 guaranteed with very low credit risk, potential for several hundred more down the line...

If it was your money and resources at risk.... What would you do?



Have a great day,


Good point.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos